Upon adding an additional key controller to my embryonic home cockpit, I find that the "update rate" of existing rotaries is too slow to use.When moving a rotary rapidly anticlockwise, it seems to miss steps and even reflects a clockwise motion at times. A bit like the wgan wheels appearing to roll backwards on old western movies.I recall reading an earlier post on this issue, but I can't seem to find it.I had 3 x key, 3 x LED, 3 x display controllers all working fine until adding the fourth key controller. Removing the fourth controller makes the problem go away - repeatably.I have a 2.4 GHz P4 512 MB RAM, FS9. Any suggestions?

By rotary you mean "rotary encoder"?Rotary encoders are not directly supported by FSBUS, they do work because of lucky timings in the program code.With a certain setup i do not remember, i had the exact same results: when i rotated my encoders i obtained something like 2 steps forward and 1 backward.Changeing the setting (i believe it's between ALPS and Conrad, or something similar) i got rid of the problem.

Hi Erups, thnx for the input.By "rotaries" I mean 12 pos 1 pole switches, not encoders or BCD switches etc.I haven't attempted your suggested setting change, as it seems to apply only to encoders, not rotary switches.Some more info though - perhaps this will ring a bell for somebody.Suspecting my (homemade) board, I reflashed the controller to CID 3 from CID 4, and unplugged the existing key controller CID 3. Everything worked fime. I then reflashed the (existing) key controller from CID 3 to CID 4, plugged it in and the problem returned.So I thought perhaps a "gap" of 1 CID is required between input and output CIDs. I unplugged the display array (CID 5 through 11) and the problem remained.It seems that the issue is peculiar to a key controller with a CID 4.Reasoning - with 3 key controllers attached CID 1,2,3 ... no problem- with 3 key controllers attached CID 1,2,4 .....problem occurs with more than one physical board masquerading as CID 4.I have also tried deleting the entire FSBUS group relating to CID 4, fearing that it may be a "scan capacity" issue.This suggests to me that it is not the total number of gates required, nor is it a "timeslice" availability issue. It's gotta b 4, but I can't figure out why?